[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

I support 2019-03

Luís Morais


On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:32 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
wrote:

>
> In message <CAFV686dzExAoZs16zZb=767BdMy-MY=
> 7HvmbNdO92qh0Q8ir6Q at mail.gmail.com>,
> Jacob Slater <jacob at rezero.org> wrote:
>
> >If a NCC member is actively and willfully, after having been notified and
> >given ample opportunity to resolve the issue, engaged in widespread
> >hijacking such that RIR/NIR members have complained about their ability to
> >use their own resources, yes.
>
> I don't see why that last part should even be a considration.
>
> Who cares whether or not some RIR members has complained about "their
> inability to use their own resources"?  Theft is theft.
>
> {re: ALS Scan v. Cloudflare}
> >That case has nothing at all to do with the theft OF IP ADDRESSES, and
> thus,
> >> it is rather entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
> >>
> >The case does deal with the slippery slope argument in that it
> demonstrates
> >at least one instance of modern law where removing content from an online
> >service (at all) resulted in an opening for legal liability.
>
> Wait.  So are you suggestng that the discontinuance of Cloudflare caching
> for some pirate porn sites -created- a lgeal liability for those sites
> where none had existed before?  If so, then you're going to have to explain
> that to me very very slowly.
>
> >... Action should be well
> >backed with evidence.
>
> We agree.
>
> >Cloudflare's blog post on the subject has comments on the matter. One of
> >their staff members is known for stating "Is this the day the Internet
> >dies?",
>
> Yes, well, as far as Cloudflare is concerned, -anything- that stands in the
> way of them doing absolutely anything, and whatever the f**k they want,
> MUST necessarily be the End Of The World As We Know It.  It would not be
> wise for anyone to take any of Cloudflare's ludicrous hyperbole seriously,
> especially while they are, one the one hand, -selling- DDoS protection,
> even as they are also -providing- DDoS protection to DDoS gerenation
> services... as they routinely do, and as they routinely claim it is their
> God-given right to do (e.g. www.0x-booter.pw).
>
> >... a reference to the fact that they acknowledge they (at the time)
> >were about to take content offline for what were non-required reasons.
>
> I, for one, would like to know just what in the hell Cloudflare considers
> to be "required reasons" for them ceasing their HTTP reverse proxy service
> to some particular FQDN.  As far as I have been able to tell, over the
> years, Cloudflare has been very insistant that there are -no- reasons that
> would -ever- require them to cease providing services, even to terrorist
> and child porn sites... at least nothing shourt of an outright court order.
>
> But this is all a digression from the issue here, which is just 2019-03,
> a proposal that only deals with the use and misuse of Internet number
> resources, PERIOD.
>
> >Getting depeered by transits, losing IX memberships, and having gear
> seized
> >by authorities all seem like potential disincentives. Having a bunch of
> >NCC-allocated IP space doesn't matter when you are unable to use it.
>
> I refer you again to the unescapable fact that, even as we speak, the
> company called Universal IP solution Corp. is still a RIPE member in good
> standing.  It is lying low, for now, but could be back in business and
> undertaking new hijacks -tomorrow-, all with the air of perfect legitimacy
> which is conferred upon it by its ongoing formal RIPE membership.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190402/471c0e58/attachment.html>